Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:14:06 +0530:
On Dec 10, 2007 8:44 PM, Robert Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would still mean everything relies on n ebuilds with mutual
blocks. Even if that would work and it block
On Dec 11, 2007 5:57 AM, Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't find the argument for versioning the scm live ebuild compelling.
The point wrt comparison, ie foo-1-scm is 2.0.1, doesn't seem enough; it'd
be better to slot that imo, and have a slot identifier[1] in the existing
cvs digit
On Dec 11, 2007 1:51 PM, Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what about when there's a dependency on any of several branches?
That gets hard to maintain if there are multiple ebuilds with similar
dependencies.
How does it become hard to maintain? Different branch ebuilds are
still the same
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:36:51 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea is that no one would want to automatically upgrade to a
branch (because you cannot define upgrade for branches), so make it
manual.
...and this is why branches shouldn't be treated like versions. They
have
On Dec 11, 2007 5:57 AM, Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't find the argument for versioning the scm live ebuild compelling.
The point wrt comparison, ie foo-1-scm is 2.0.1, doesn't seem enough; it'd
be better to slot that imo, and have a slot identifier[1] in the existing
cvs digit
On Dec 11, 2007 4:47 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:36:51 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea is that no one would want to automatically upgrade to a
branch (because you cannot define upgrade for branches), so make it
manual.
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 8:44 PM, Robert Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would still mean everything relies on n ebuilds with mutual blocks.
Even if that would work and it block upgrades, it is still not a
solution in terms of how to display a list of ebuilds in one tree
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Incidentally, I suspect the gcc example with _p is confusing people. The
normal use for an -scm suffix will be as follows:
Yeah I abused the _p suffix. My bad.
The whole _p thing only comes up for those very rare (or possibly
non-existent) projects that have patchset
� wrote:
Specification
=
``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other
valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just
like
revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.:
* ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha0-scm``
